^I second that whole heartedly, after watching my grandparents and now my parents; fear seeps in as your body becomes fragile and your mind slower. You start to feel vulnerable to many things since your capacities are diminished. The alternatives are worse though...^

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S.
involvement in Iraq , here's a sobering statistic. There has been a
monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during
the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths. That gives a firearm
death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for
the same period

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the
U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq ..

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington

I'm sorry Ed but you are a dumbass. There are about 550k people in Washington DC. At a murder rate of 80 per 100k per month that roughly equates to 440 people dead a month. No way in hell is that even close to accurate. That's an average of 14 people a day. Ridiculous.

Noone even mentions that the populations of these cities are not all armed with M-16s either. I'd imagine the rate would be much lower if everyone were.

Matters not who has served and who hasn't. All that matters is that we're citizens and voters. You're boys & girls won the recent election. The course for the next two years is very much in tehir hands, if they choose to exercsize it. If not, prepare for 2 more years of hateful whining from your team. that's one burden they've proven amply able to undertake.

And just how many of those vets said they wouldn't do it again if they had to? There is one hell of a difference between wanting to and doing it because it has to be done to protect yourself and those that you care about.

You may be right, I may be frightened like your dad, but he knows a lot more about what's going on in the world because he's seen it before, and knows the end result. You on the other hand don't have a clue, but of course you already know it all, don't you salesman?

Your OPINION may be more informed then some of the above, but it's still only an OPINION.
As far as the rest of the world is concerned we only know what the press has allowed us to know. They seem to have a lock on most of the information, and is there any question as to which way they lean, and which way they want the U.S. to go?

I thought I could smell piss and shit. Same old repetitive, senile, inaccurate bullshit grandpa.

I'll back you on that Shane.
How many of those that consistently attack the troops and the government actually served?
How many have actually put their lives on the line to protect the idiots like FoTL and the others that denigrate them?
We have some here who are so proud of the fact that they wouldn't consider even protecting themselves that they state: I never served, and never will.....
True heroes,.... but only with their mouths, and other peoples lives...............

Be a little less free with your abuse of the US troops actually in Iraq. Using them as a pawn in an internet forum argument to support your opinion that the policy makers who came up with the policy that lead to invading Iraq, and then failing to carry through effectively, leading to chaos and civil war, while 3100 US troops were killed and at least an order of magnitude more were horribly wounded, is an example of good leadership plainly shows a deep disregard for those troops. You see them as little more than political device to be used to build some perverse emotional case for continued support of failing policy to save face for incompetent policy makers. Yet you criticize those who see them as brave human beings who's willingness to sacrifice should be preserved to protect America from real enemies as somehow "against the troops."

The fact that those of us who find the Iraq invasion a folly that should be carried to its conclusion without just US troops attempting to fix the horror we have inflicted on Iraq cannot be equated to attacking the troops. The officials in our government who hatched the policy and then the plan that has resulted in the Vietnam-like horror we have on our hands today are being attacked because they deserve to be attacked. NO ONE IS ATTACKING THE US MILITARY AND THE BRAVE US SOLDIERS WHO HAVE BEEN SENT THERE - GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD! We are all grateful there are men and women in this country who will stand and defend the United States of America. We just don't think wasting their gift to us by sending them on a mission that is now in its fourth year, and no one can articulate what that mission is, or the strategy that bore the mission might be, or even what the tactical plan is to arrive at, oh yeah, we still don't know what the goal is.

Try to make your points without denegrating the troops, please. Thanks, Jim

I'm sorry Ed but you are a dumbass. There are about 550k people in Washington DC. At a murder rate of 80 per 100k per month that roughly equates to 440 people dead a month. No way in hell is that even close to accurate. That's an average of 14 people a day. Ridiculous.

Noone even mentions that the populations of these cities are not all armed with M-16s either. I'd imagine the rate would be much lower if everyone were.

Why, thank you . . .

You guys are losing your sense of humor. I believe the beginning of the joke said something to the effect of "old joke" since the death toll cited was in the low 2000's. Guess I should post the one about the UFO and the birth dates of prominent Democrats next to see how many of you refute that . . .